Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras

Analog Gems part 1

Battles rage over whether digital or analog is the better medium. But those shouting on both sides are missing out on the simple truth that the two compliment each other beautifully.

With digital photography, there is an ability and sometimes a desire to achieve something precise, while happy surprises can be a big part of the analog draw. Keen photographers realize that shooting with both mediums keeps one creatively-focused and balanced: aware that perfection exists, but open to creative serendipity. Moreover, film gives the user a chance to slow down and be decisive, and digital allows the user to quickly see results and learn.

Many of the readers of our site are digital diehards. But let's pretend for a moment that we've convinced you to dabble a bit in analog. What would be a good camera to run a roll through? What follows is a list of 10 cameras, all of which are easy to find, technically capable, and reasonably priced. These are cameras known for holding up mechanically and don't require obscure or discontinued batteries, like mercury cells.

Of course, this list is far from complete – there are many excellent film cameras available that fit our criteria. Which is why we'll be looking to add more periodically. So if there are any you feel particularly strongly about, let us know in the comments. Happy shooting!

"Reasonably priced" is part of the DP remit. This doesn't include costs of film, because all film cameras require film. Simple.As photographers, we should appreciate that lenses are the BIG cost. Camera bodies alone can't take photographs, so an old film camera can only be said to be reasonable priced and realistically usable if you have good affordable lenses.I have bought many old cameras recently, simply because I dreamed of them 40 years ago when I got my first slr and today they are ridiculously cheap. Do I use the OM-1 or the Fed-2 or the Leica R5? No. Why? Because I have only a single lens for each of them.I use the Canon F-1n because it was my DREAM camera when young, so I have bought very expensive FD lenses for it. I use it, but I cannot call it inexpensive.By contrast, I use my Canon 1V and Nikon F5 all the time. The bodies cost about £150 each, but the lenses are "free" for I can use the EF and FX lenses I already have. And they are as reliable as any of today's dslrs.

Argh!!! I owned an Olympus MjuII in champagne gold exactly as shown in picture 8... but sold it on eBay (years ago) for about £40, amazed that anyone would want to bid for a used film camera. We shouldn't forget that there are still many old people who have no computer, so will never want to own any sort of digital camera.

That and the Canon AE-1 were the first SLRs i ever bought. ended up sending the Canon back, and gave the Nikon and a sharp 50mm lens to my now-ex girlfriend. Really wish I would've kept that damn camera...

Amongst others I had two orange L35AF's for boating and fishing pics back in the day. Sold a bunch of pictures from them, including some magazine covers. It took pin sharp photos, come rain, spray or shine. Great cameras.

The Canon AE-1 is a capable camera but I would go back a generation to the FD mount F1n. This camera is a mechanical marvel. Everything mechanical except the match needle light meter. The sound and smooth lever advance are so satisfying. With interchangeable viewfinders a high eye point viewfinder was easily installed making action viewing easier.

A second pick for me would be the Rollie TLR. While the Hasselblad was more flexible I had the most fun with the Rollie. Of course I was fifty years younger which always improves memories.

The original F1 is the SLR Leica should have produced. The T90, especially with the data back, is the most exceptional of the line (and the last). You need to at least dry-shoot the T90 regularly to avoid the dreaded EEE lockup that costs $100 or more to fix.

HOWEVER...

The original Nikon F, with the plain pentaprism finder, and a 105mm f2.5 of any vintage, is my idea of the penultimate film SLR. A close second is the Nikon F3 HP high eye point.

The obstacle to their common use is more than just the fact that, as pointed out, a roll of 36 exposure print film costs as much or more than a fast 16GB Class 10 SD card. Affordable quality labs have all but disappeared. Even college labs, once available for reasonable rental prices, have all but disappeared.

Ah, bring back memories of the good old days! Olympus Mju - I recommended it to a friend because of the sharp lens, and my older brother had the Minolta X700. Then, I was using the Pentax LX and Super A.

Yes, I miss the Minox GT (I still have it, but don't use it anymore).Of course, the listed Olympus XA is a nice cam as well.

I owned them both.

First the XA. But when I discovered the Minox GT, the Olympus went back.I wouldn't say that there was much optical difference.But the handling of the Minox was just better.

Once opened, it remained open, whereas the XA tended to half-close again if you accidently touched the open "door" at its edges - it just did not remain open stably.

If the Minox was used upside-down you had a perfect sunshade and also a reliable exposure metering compensating for the bright sky.The open door also stabilized the tiny cam for automatic long-time exposures up to 30 seconds, and a built-in self-timer supported this.

So, it became my always-with-me-travel cam.

And the slides it produced were usually indistinguishable from the ones out of my Olympus OM-2n.

I personally never liked it. I bought one because of the cult status it has but eventually I sold it. Focus was erratic and film rewind as well. I never enjoyed using it with its portrait framing horizontal and viceversa. Plus the dedicated flash was not TTL and finding the right exposure is very difficult. The pop up flash I found nearly useless. The lens is so slow it is almost impossible to shoot apart from full daylight. And the zoom is basically only a three step focal length. Overall too quirky for my tastes.

shame you didn't get on with it, f4 is hardly too slow to make it impossible to shoot with, can disagree fundamentally on that one, pop in a faster film perhaps? For on the go medium format, not many cameras can match it. Great for portraits with the film plane set at portrait also.

Pentax ME Super was a camera I could never afford (at the time of release)However I picked on up recently in a pawn shop for £10 with a 50mm f2 lens. played with it for a short time, replaced the light seals and sold it on eBay for £65.

Well I got that urge out of me.. and BTW Film processing is NOT cheap.. even with process and CD only.

Watch out for the ME Super roll load gotcha, which you can read about elsewhere. You close the back, wind-on and think you're taking pics but the lead slipped out. I got nobbled by this twice; a painful experience especially as in once case I had lent the camera to a friend for his marathon cycling holiday up and down mountains.

Unhappily you can't really 'feel' for this. Unlike other cameras, I found that there wasn't much difference between genuinely winding on and not. And there's no indicator either; the counter goes up either way.

@ Alan Brown: for the scanning, I use an adapted 135 mm M42 lens with macro belows (extension tubes would do too). Not perfect, but pretty good. As for the developping, for B&W it's very easily done at home. All together, the bulk-loaded film and chjemistry cost me less than 3 EUR per roll, and the digitalizing equipment can be had for as little as 20 EUR and some luck on e-Bay. I guess any modern long kit zoom would actually do a better job, but I don't own one. Here are a few pictures processed that way: https://www.flickr.com/photos/133903476@N07/with/34807107345/

I've seen the maths between buying a £30 film camera off e-bay and then adding film and processing, vs digital equipt at equivalent quality level (full frame or at least aps-c, 45-50mm fast prime lens). Film actually works out cheaper because of depreciation on the digital hardware (whereas the film cameras have already lost nearly all their value). One thing I DID learn very quickly, you can't spray and shoot like we've all gotten used to with digital, and getting used to manual focusing again.

I've just remembered that Irfanview doesn't have curves. I use the SmartCurve adobe plugin which irfanview can use. However, a warning: irfanview may have colour issues; it doesn't match Gimp or Windows in its rendering; just a touch off bizarrely.

It's the best curves tool outside of photoshop. The auto mode does an ok job. I find the negative image is fairly compressed, so it's probably best to do this with RAW images in something like RawTherapee, which also has curves, but I've not tried.

Also, to avoid noise reduction if taking jpegs, maybe add a bit of exposure comp to shift the negative image up the histogram and out of the way of any possible noise reduction.

Film photog isn't that much cheaper despite the used cameras. With mostly colour slide film and some b/w that I develop myself. I've spent $8k on digital stuff and $5k on film stuff. Maybe perhaps $4k cos I got a Blad. But back in the days I have with me 1991 magazine and B&H charged nearly $8US for a roll of slides, $4US for professional portrait film and $2US for Kodak Gold. The killer is the scanner though for the handful of film you use. While you can use your smartphone it's not the same ..... then again a flatbed scanner doesn't really fully capitalise on the full potential.

Maybe the Olympus Trip should be in the mix. While it's not sexy it is a camera which sold in the millions is fun to use, doesn't need batteries and has a decent lens and introduced so many to photography. There's also a bit of a cult around it with specialist refurbishers like Trip Man.

I own Nikon n80, Olympus OM4, Minolta Hi-Matic 7 SII and Pentax 645 (manual focus). Olympus OM-4 is the best manual focus 35 mm camera. Pentax 645 can be bought with 120 back close to USD 250 in excellent plus condition that too from KEH.

Interesting that after over thirty years of working in film and God knows how many cameras, I only owned one on your list, the Olympus XA. A lot of my film cameras I wouldn't want a second time around but the ones I would enjoy using again would be Leica 3g; Nikon SP; and the Contax G2, all 35mm rangefinder cameras. Medium format would have to be the Plaubel Makina and the Fuji 6x9. SLR's - for years it was that old workhorse the Pentax Spotmatic. But I preferred rangefinger cameras over SLRs. But the bottom line is after being in digital photography almost as long as I worked with film I would never look back no matter how nostalgic I get for those machines. But I guess I'm getting a little off topic!

I shoot my personal projects on my Nikon FM2/N. Mine is an odd version where the dial and serial number denotes it as an N model, but still had the original version's titanium honeycomb shutter instead of the aluminium one used in later models. I've used a lot of cameras over the years, but I still love shooting with the FM2 more than any other camera. With that being said, shooting film is getting too cost prohibitive for me, and I hope one day a digital back would be made for it.

I would certainly nominate the 70's era fixed lens rangefinder cameras such as the Canon Canonet QL17 GIII, the Olympus 35 RC, RD, and SP and several others. They are compact and have approximately 40 mm fixed lenses, some of them quite excellent optically. I have a whole collection of these, they produce lovely photographs and are fun to use. They have a very clever flash system that mechanically couples to the aperture and distance to produce well exposed shots. They are widely available generally for < $100 though they benefit from a CLA and new seals. The only disadvantage is that most use the banned PX 625 mercury battery, but you can easily substitute a zinc oxide battery. The Canonet was often called the "poor man's Leica". You can read about them here: https://cameraquest.com/com35s.htm

Yeah... back in the day I used to earn my living with my cameras. When people would ask me what kind of cameras I used, I would say, "Why, I use Analogue cameras." They would look at me as though I was some strange escapee from the future. If I had of said, "I use Film cameras," they still would have been puzzled, because no-one knew of an alternative to film. Anyway, it's strange how 'Film' cameras weirdly became 'Analogue' cameras with the advent of digital sensors. I still prefer the appellation, 'Film camera'. It just makes more sense and is far less wanky.

Why no love for the OM-1? It was impressively compact for its time, the lenses were adorably tiny and yet sharp (I still take a Zuiko 200 f/5 adapted to EOS backpacking with me). The best part: the battery was optional. It was only necessary for the meter, and everything else on the camera was fully mechanical. The OM-1 batteries aren't exactly common, but you can still buy them online and in camera stores.

Bought a Pentax K1000 in 1981 - still shooting with it - indestructible. Great range of quality lenses too.I also have a Canon AE1 - nice camera but much prefer The Brick.Also love the Pentax 67's - I love that it is an 'oversized SLR'.Much prefer this to Mamiya 645 - you need to add Pentax 67 to the list.

I had a great time using the Minolta 7000i in the Costa Rican cloud forest for a couple of months shortly after the camera came out in 1988. Great camera. There was a Nat. Geo photographer there the whole time, but I think I got better shots of the hummingbirds at 1/2000 - 1/4000 in natural sunlight with ASA 800 Fuji film pushed to 3200. Not grainy at all, though it was only standard prints. Amazing place for birds, I wish I had had a longer lens than the Tamron 70-210mm.

The OM-1 was revolutionary when it arrived, small, chunky, & solid with brilliant primes available. I bought two, the black one for B&W, the silver one for colour. I have a 24mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.4, a 100mm 2.8 & a 200mm f4. Along with some extension tubes & a televerter, there was nothing they couldn't handle. And they feel so good in the hand when shooting, not like my oversized D800. But I also have an XA for when I didn't want to carry the full kit. Pity Olympus were slow to move to DSLR or I would still be with them, instead of Nikon.

The Olympus mju ii has gotten ridiculously expensive now. I have two of them and they are terrific cameras. Really a gem of a camera but now overpriced. The negatives I get from my Nikon FE always look stellar, so I would also put that camera on the list.

Not too bad, I own 5 out of the 10 camera's mentioned. I do agree with most of the comments.I would opt for the Nikon EM. Cheap and affordable. The first almost plastic Nikon. Sturdy as hell (or Doorstopper) Simple to use and easy to manipulate.

And one of the older "compact"s with an 45mm 1.7 lens. There are several affordable and great quality. I own an Yashica electric 35 GX.

And the Lubitel II... Build and sold since the 50's until the end of day. I was surprised to see advertisements in Photo Magazines from 1958.

Add the Leica M4-P although it does not have a built in meter. The clip on meter is easily available and interlocks with the shutter dial for match needle shooting. The M4-P is less of a collectors item and will cost much less than other M analogue Leica's and is very rugged reliable. Also consider the Zeiss ZM which is a newer camera now discontinued. It has built in aperture priority and takes every M mount lens ever made. The OVF/ rangefinder is a very bright wonder with great eye relief. It is a little larger than the Leica and very well made. I owned them both and have moved on to the Leica M9-P and T cameras since then.

For the SLR fans, the Nikon FM is IMO the best value in a used match needle metered film SLR and the Nikon FE which has an excellent apertured preferred meter built in . Another very good choice is the Nikon 8008, albeit a bit large but gives a choice of manual, A and/or S preferred and automatic. I have owned all three at one time or another.

My first 35 mm camera was a Konica auto S2, bought in a PX in Nam in 1966 for $35. Still works, still a great design. I also have scads of Kodak Retinas. I could never stand the folding Retinas interlocking shutter-aperture controls, or locking the shutter based on the film count. Why doesn't America make anything anymore except combat aircraft? Anyone here ever use the programming language JOVIAL?

I collect cameras and have over 200 film cameras. Leica M2, 3, 4 and 6, about 10 screwmounts. Every top of the line Nikon except the F6. All three versions of the Canon F-1, 3 Canon T90s, Minoltas, Pentaxes, Voigtlanders, Zeiss galore. My wife doesnt know an f-stop from a doorstop, and tells me that on my demise, she will have a huge garage sale, any camera for $5, since they all look alike to her. I am over 80. I also collect pens, pocket knives, books, handbags, porn movies. I admit to being a nut.

The quality of film vs. digital is beyond my visual powers but digital al is lightyears ahead in convenience, most importantly instant gratification. Also have iPads and an iPhone 7+, and view most photos on an iPad.

My current favorites are the Panasonic ZS100 and ZS50. Also like the Fuji XPro1, and Sonys 6, 7 and a6000. Really love using old lenses with adaptors on the Sonys.

nice to see you have hobbies. Since I am a few years younger than you, and I respect your effort to do all the heavy lifting in acquiring your collection, I am willing to show up early at this garage sale and for $1000, buy them all. I will put your name on the overhead shelf sign.

I cannot fathom why you included the (admittedly respectable) Pentax K-1000 and Canon AE-1, and yet SKIP all the old all-metal Nikon SLRs. (And go straight to the "plastic-fantastic era of modern film SLRs?)

If anything, the Nikon FM2 is both a better camera, and a bigger milestone in 35mm SLR history, than the Canon AE-1. That honeycomb titanium shutter is something every classic camera aficionado should see / own / use.

while the FM2 was a great camera, it was nowhere near the milestone that the AE-1 was. Canon brought the slr into the hands of the people with their pricing and marketing. I will agree with the OM-1 - this caused the downsizing of the 35mm sir in the late 70s. The Nikon FM/FE twins and the Pentax ME/MX pair followed the OM route.

In other words, the AE-1 wins because it's cheap plastic and Canon duped a lot of people into buying one?

*facepalm*

No, I kid; the AE-1 is still a great camera despite its inferior construction, and despite Canon's marketing fluff. My mother had one for many years as a young adult.

But then again, it broke before I could inherit it in time to take photo in high school. Meanwhile, BOTH of my grandfather's cameras, a Nikon FG and Pentax K-1000, are both still working perfectly. Go figure. All-metal FTW.

All of the A series Canons were the same under the skin. The cloth shutter was a weak point and commonly failed with age. Chrome over ABS plastic looked convincingly like metal. You could buy an AE-1P with 50/1.8 for under $250 when I bought a Nikon FE2 with 50/1.4 for about $500 in 1983. Canon literally sold a million of them, it was a great success. My father bought an AE-1 the year it was introduced, he traded a Miranda and several lenses just for the body. He bought Canon's FD 35-70/2.8-3.5, all of our family pictures and vacations were shot with that camera and lens. Having an excellent built-in meter in 1976 was a huge advantage.

There are so many great choices. I still use my grandad's old Pentax ME and recently, when I wanted to up my portraiture a notch bought a Bronica Sqa and picked up a few lenses. The lenses on the pentax and the bronica are superb and, for the medium format look there is really no modern alternative yet. Certainly none at anything near the price I paid (a few hundred quid). Well worth dusting off if you have one in a drawer somewhere. Well worth trying rather than faffing about swapping between near identical digital systems in search of some illusory 2% image quality.

Some great choices.While I had a reflex camera, I brought the Mju2 on backpacking trips. ItEven had spot metering.My suggestions to add:- Fuji GA645. Easier for traveling than the Mamiya in the article. Excellent.Like a big AF compact in use.-Nikon F3. Perhaps the prettiest slr ever?- Canon T90. Luigi Colani's incredible design- Leica R8/R9. Very nice to work with SLRs, simple and relaxing. Really quite something in the hand.- Yashica T5. The analog era's X100!- any Rolleiflex 3.5 because smaller and lighter than the 2.8 models at only 1/2 stop slower, and the same splendid quality. I made some of my best photos with one and still use it from time to time.

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.